So the sixers are favored again

[Moranis]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

[celticsclay]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment. 

[Moranis]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

[Tr1boy]

Shake my head.  The level of disrespect is palpable.

https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/odds

doesn't matter what they are

Celts won't lose to them at home. you can bank on this

yesterday Celts had a chance to win when down by 10 with 4 mins to go.  Nobody could hit a 3 if their life depended on it

won't be like this at home

[Chris22]

Sounds like a good time to bet on the Celtics.

[liam]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

The stats don't tell the whole story.

[celticsclay]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

The stats don't tell the whole story.

Yea come on Moranis. You are better than this. Horford literally has a game winner. Simmons literally has a game loser by not talking out a rebound he got with 8 seconds left and his team up 1.

Since you brought up the media your post is extra comical since they are talking about his struggles extensively

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2774331-donovan-mitchell-on-ben-simmons-struggles-vs-celtics-happens-to-everybody (after game 3 more struggles)
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/1/17306016/ben-simmons-celtics-defense-game-1 (after game 1 when he had ok counting stats)
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2774251-ben-simmons-says-game-2-struggles-vs-celtics-were-self-inflicted
http://www.nba.com/article/2018/05/04/76ers-brett-brown-sticks-with-struggling-ben-simmons
http://www.nba.com/article/2018/05/06/ben-simmons-struggles-against-boston-celtics-game-3

Heck he was playing so bad even liberty ballers got into it:
https://www.libertyballers.com/2018/5/4/17318172/was-going-back-to-ben-simmons-the-right-call
https://www.libertyballers.com/2018/5/5/17318266/how-celtics-are-making-life-difficult-for-ben-simmons

You really soft served that one up to me like you hadn't watched the games and just glanced at a few box scores. You want a mulligan on that post? lol

[greece66]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

This is not an incredibly close series. Nor do they have the best players.

[jpotter33]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

Funny how you leave out percentages and +/-.

Al is a +32 while Ben is a - 50 in the series.

Also, Al has shooting splits of 61.5/25/92 while Ben is shooting 45.5/0/66.6. That’s substantial.

So Al with 15.5/8.75/3.5 on much better shooting splits is somehow on par with Ben at 13.5/8.3/6.5 with much lower shooting splits, not to mention much better D by Al?

Ben might end up being better than Horford eventually, though I doubt it if he never develops a jump shot, but it’s asinine to say he’s currently better, especially in this series.

[celticsclay]

odds are geared towards getting an equal amount of money placed on both teams. thus, they move to what the public thinks.

I understand that.  But my view remains the same.  Being the underdog in a close out game at home (when they have a 3-1 lead) and have been the underdog in every game is downright offensive.

blame the bettors not the odds makers.

I'm blaming the whole world.  Let's not act like this isn't disrespectful on some level.

I don't think it is disrespectful.  The Sixers have the 2 "best" players in the series.  They were up 22 and blew game 2, and if not for a few boneheaded plays down the stretch of game 3, should have won that one.  Outside of game 1, this has been an incredibly close series, and the world will often side with talent on two near equal teams.  That is just reality.

Who do you think , besides philly fans, view the 76ers as having the best two players in the series? Horford was named an all-star this year (for the 5th time). Simmons, despite having like 4 cracks at it because of injury replacements was not even named a replacement all-star this year. Furthermore, Simmons has been talked about being exposed and there has been legitmate discussion of whether the 76ers are better off with TJ McConnell playing additional minutes this series over Simmons. Meanwhile, Al has casually averaged 17, 9 and 5 on 60% shooting from the field including the game winning basket in game 3. Who exactly is saying Simmons is a better play than Al Horford today? (Aside from 12 year olds collecting rookie cards I suppose).

Have you not listened to the media?

The Media is a broad term. The media is going to vote for all-defensive and all-nba teams, and I would imagine Al would perform better than Ben on those (could be wrong though). If you are including people like Charles Barkely and Steven A Smith as media, i could see them saying Ben Simmons is a better player. If you are talking about more serious people like Jackie M or Peter King or Zach Lowe I would be more surprised if they said Simmons was a better player right now. I think overall it is pretty strange to declare Simmons as better than Horford right now when Simmons neither made the all-star team nor is he performing well in the moment.

Simmons last game was 19/13/5.  Game before that he was 16/8/8.  Game 2 he was awful with just 1/5/7, but game 1 he was 18/7/6.  He had an epically bad game, but has been pretty darn good in the other 3 games in the series, and even with that awful game he is still averaging 13.5/8.3/6.5 in the series, which is on par with Horford in the series.

Funny how you leave out percentages and +/-.

Al is a +32 while Ben is a - 50 in the series.

Also, Al has shooting splits of 61.5/25/92 while Ben is shooting 45.5/0/66.6. That’s substantial.

So Al with 15.5/8.75/3.5 on much better shooting splits is somehow on par with Ben at 13.5/8.3/6.5 with much lower shooting splits, not to mention much better D by Al?

Ben might end up being better than Horford eventually, though I doubt it if he never develops a jump shot, but it’s asinine to say he’s currently better, especially in this series.

Thanks Jpotter, see the media coverage above. Everyone is getting it except Moranis apparently. Although I have a hard time even he actually believes they have performed similarly.

[PhoSita]

Considering that Embiid's TS% for the playoffs is barely over 50%, I am going to say that Horford has been the best player in this second round series.

Now, I think it was reasonable for people to assume that the Sixers had the two most talented players in the series and that the talent gap might result in the Sixers having the two best performers in the series.

That's now how it's gone, though.

I think there's an argument to be made for Jayson Tatum and/or Terry Rozier having a better series than Simmons, too.

Look, high usage and rebounds are the two easiest ways for a box score to overrate players.  Rebounding matters, but I don't think it matters a lot more than defense and shooting percentages do.


Anyway, Vegas is going to keep setting the lines based on what the public perception is, and the public still thinks that the Sixers are SO much more talented than the Celts and they should win any given game whether at home or on the road.

I guess we'll see.

[celticsclay]

Considering that Embiid's TS% for the playoffs is barely over 50%, I am going to say that Horford has been the best player in this second round series.

Now, I think it was reasonable for people to assume that the Sixers had the two most talented players in the series and that the talent gap might result in the Sixers having the two best performers in the series.

That's now how it's gone, though.

I think there's an argument to be made for Jayson Tatum and/or Terry Rozier having a better series than Simmons, too.

Look, high usage and rebounds are the two easiest ways for a box score to overrate players.  Rebounding matters, but I don't think it matters a lot more than defense and shooting percentages do.


Anyway, Vegas is going to keep setting the lines based on what the public perception is, and the public still thinks that the Sixers are SO much more talented than the Celts and they should win any given game whether at home or on the road.

I guess we'll see.

Would you say there is a difference between saying "talented" and "better." I think just about everyone would agree Simmons is more talented because he has the tools to be a really great player if he can master shooting a bit (which other players have done). However, I don't think anyone would really say he was better right now outside of casual fans and philly fans. Horford was an all-star and Simmons was not, despite Simmons gaudy counting stats. In the playoffs the difference has been even more pronounced as Simmons has shrunk from the moment and Horford has shined. I can't imagine many people share Moranis' view...

[PhoSita]

In the playoffs the difference has been even more pronounced as Simmons has shrunk from the moment and Horford has shined. I can't imagine many people share Moranis' view...

I suspect a lot of people still share the view that Simmons is a "better" player despite the evidence of this series.  Simmons after all plays a more exciting style and you can make excuses for a bad performance in a game or two of a series.

As for the difference between "talent" and "better," I guess the way I look at it is that "talent" is what a player seems capable of doing based on their physical abilities and demonstrable skills, whereas "better" is about how well they actually play.

Russell Westbrook, for example, is clearly one of the most talented players in the league, but his actual game impact doesn't measure up to his talent, in my opinion, because he has a compulsion to play a certain way that prevents his teammates from being fully involved and results in his scoring being fairly inefficient.


Anyway, this is all semantics.  The lines are what they are because that's what Vegas thinks will get them the most money.  Respect has nothing to do with it, except insofar as it suggests Vegas thinks the betting public doesn't respect the Celtics.

[droopdog7]

Considering that Embiid's TS% for the playoffs is barely over 50%, I am going to say that Horford has been the best player in this second round series.

Now, I think it was reasonable for people to assume that the Sixers had the two most talented players in the series and that the talent gap might result in the Sixers having the two best performers in the series.

That's now how it's gone, though.

I think there's an argument to be made for Jayson Tatum and/or Terry Rozier having a better series than Simmons, too.

Look, high usage and rebounds are the two easiest ways for a box score to overrate players.  Rebounding matters, but I don't think it matters a lot more than defense and shooting percentages do.


Anyway, Vegas is going to keep setting the lines based on what the public perception is, and the public still thinks that the Sixers are SO much more talented than the Celts and they should win any given game whether at home or on the road.

I guess we'll see.

Would you say there is a difference between saying "talented" and "better." I think just about everyone would agree Simmons is more talented because he has the tools to be a really great player if he can master shooting a bit (which other players have done). However, I don't think anyone would really say he was better right now outside of casual fans and philly fans. Horford was an all-star and Simmons was not, despite Simmons gaudy counting stats. In the playoffs the difference has been even more pronounced as Simmons has shrunk from the moment and Horford has shined. I can't imagine many people share Moranis' view...

Shooting is part of talent.  Simmons has many skills and one giant flaw.  Need to evaluate the total package so I would actually say that Tatum is more talented.  He's obviously a better shooter but on top of that, he's a better scorer and likely always will be. 

[LarBrd33]

If we lose Game 5, you have permission to panic.  Sixers have significantly more talent than our current group.  We had no business winning 3 straight against them.  Gotta win Game 5.